Read app settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious facts that the call consumes no credits ('free') and that the language setting governs ad/copy output while chat replies follow the user's own language. That language-behavior nuance is real context an agent could not get from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: what it returns first, then the semantics of the most confusing field, then the cost/safety claim. No filler and nothing buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the three settings returned and clarifying the one that would otherwise be ambiguous (write-language vs. chat language). For a trivial zero-arg read, nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the description correctly spends no words on inputs. Baseline for a no-param tool applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read this account's app settings') and then enumerates exactly what those settings are — ad/copy language, theme, weekly competitor-watch email. An agent can tell instantly this is the read side of configuration, distinct from update_settings or set_competitor_watch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Read-only, free' signals it is safe and costless to call at any time, and 'Same settings as the web app's Settings pane' grounds it in a familiar surface. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over update_settings or how it relates to set_competitor_watch / list_watch_findings, so the routing is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.